Erick Robinson's China Patent Blog
Erick Robinson's China Patent Blog
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • Contact

Conflicting Messages (and Goals) in China Create Increased Need for Preparation by Foreign Companies

4/27/2016

1 Comment

 
"The take-home message is that China will, over the next 5-20 years, eliminate foreign competition from the Chinese market to the extent possible and foreign companies must prepare."
Picture
Picture
Last week, two interesting developments focused attention on China’s policy regarding technology and freedom.  A week ago, China President Xi Jinping chaired a meeting of high-level officials and top internet tycoons, calling for “greater tolerance and patience” of online criticism, and vowing more support for e-commerce.  But on Friday, Apple’s iTunes Store and The Walt Disney Company’s DisneyLife service were quietly shut down in China under the new Regulation for the Management of Online Publishing Services.  

The two conflicting messages show the mainland authorities’ struggle between using the power of the internet to aid economic growth and exerting greater control over online content.

Ultimately, this fits into a bigger picture issue:  China wants to control every aspect of its domestic market.

Sure, the government wants to control the Internet via the Great Firewall of China.  But why is this?  Partially it is to control what its people see for social reasons.  But I believe the larger reason is to make sure that China's domestic market is dominated by Chinese companies.  Whether it is streaming movies or building semiconductors, the government wants all commerce to eventually be supplied by Chinese companies.  So although the juxtaposition of calls for "greater tolerance" and locking down iTunes appear to conflict, they really do not.  Remember, everything has to be seen in the light of the government's needs.  "Greater tolerance" really means "greater tolerance when it helps domestic industry."  

So if someone starts making noise against the Communist Party, that does not fit into the government's needs for greater use of the Internet.  But getting more Chinese companies online -- and giving them a leg up against foreign competitors clearly does fit.

So this, like everything, disparately impacts foreign companies that are not acting like "friends of China."  Here, Apple was not properly supporting the Chinese movie industry according to the government.  For example, property and leisure industry giant Dalian Wanda, and Internet behemoths Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent (dubbed “BAT” in the Chinese press) are engaged in a race to dominate the streaming movie industry. Wanda, Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent’s assets are vast and powerful, giving them the ability to attract audiences across every major media platform. Wanda owns the largest cinema chain in China; Tencent boasts nearly 800 million social media subscribers, and is the largest online games distributor on the planet; Baidu is China’s leading search engine; and Alibaba is the world’s biggest e-commerce business.  Alibaba and Baidu have major stakes in two of China’s top three online video companies. 
Online video is hugely significant in China. According to official statistics, by mid-2014, there were 439 million people consuming video content in that manner on the mainland.  I will not dive deeper into this sector, other than to say I can see why the government saw Apple as a threat.

The take-home message is that China will, over the next 5-20 years, eliminate foreign competition from the Chinese market to the extent possible and foreign companies must prepare.  One way they will do this is via the Chinese anti-monopoly law (e.g., Qualcomm).  Another is via just banning participation in e-commerce (e.g., Apple).  Finally, China will use patents.  Any companies that plan to stick around China for the long haul must begin significant planning and creative thinking now.  Generating or buying Chinese patents and keeping trade secrets secret can provide some protection.  Further, foreign companies should consider creating joint ventures with important Chinese companies (especially government-owned entities) so make them more "Chinese."  There are ways for foreign businesses to win in China, but you have to be smart, flexible, and creative.  But you cannot watch movies on iTunes, apparently.

1 Comment

New Rules for Patent Lawsuits from the Highest Court in China

4/9/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Picture
On 22 March 2016, the China Supreme People’s Court released its latest Interpretations on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Cases (II) (the "New Interpretations").  They took effect last week, on April 1.  

​In China such interpretations released by the Supreme People's Court can be used by the courts as legal precedent, and as such, are a big deal.  The New Interpretations include 31 articles regarding important patent litigation issues such as claim construction, contributory infringement, Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), injunctive relief, and damages calculation, and other issues are covered focusing on reasonableness of claim construction and balancing the interests of the patent owner and the public.  The most important provisions are discussed below.

Contributory Infringement
Article 21 stipulates that "[w]here a party has clear knowledge that certain products are the materials, equipment, parts and components, intermediate items, etc. specifically for the exploitation of a patent, and yet still provides, without licensing from the relevant patentee, such products to another party committing the patent infringement, the people’s court shall uphold the claim by the right holder that the party's provision of such products is an act of assistance for infringement as prescribed by Article 9 of the Tort Liability Law." (Emphasis added).
 
Shifting of Burden for Proving Damages to the Accused Infringer
Article 27 shifts the burden of proof from the patentee to the accused infringer when proof of damages is difficult to obtain except through receiving information from the defendant.  Specifically, in instances when the patentee has reasonably attempted to fulfill the burden of proof and evidentiary standards required but meaningful evidence is possessed only by the accused infringer, the court may require the defendant to submit damages evidence.  If the accused infringer refuses to provide such account books and materials without justification or provides false account books and materials, the people’s court may determine damages based on the reasonably supported claims of the patent holder.

Compulsory Licensing
Article 26 provides that where the defendant is found liable for patent infringement, the people’s court shall generally uphold the request of the right holder that the defendant be ordered to stop the infringement.  However, if the national interests or public interests will be hurt by enjoining the acts of patent infringement, the people's court may, instead of providing injunctive relief, order the defendant to pay reasonable monetary damages. 

Further, Article 25 provides that a good-faith user of an infringing product may not be required to cease infringement if such user submits evidence proving that it has paid reasonable consideration for such product.  Good faith in this context requires that the user show that it had no actual knowledge and should not have reasonably had such knowledge that the product was manufactured and sold without a license from the patent holder.

Claim Construction
Ten of the Articles relate to claim construction.  

Article 4 makes a common sense determination regarding obvious errors in claims.  Specifically, where a person of ordinary skill in the art can clearly arrive at only a single unique understanding by reading the claims, written description, and drawings despite ambiguity in terms of grammar, wording, punctuations, graphics, symbols, or other errors, the people’s court shall make determination according to such unique understanding.

Article 5 clarifies that technical features described in the preamble (as well as the rest of a claim) shall be construed as limiting.
 
Article 8 relates to functional claiming (analogous to mean-plus-function claiming in the U.S.).  It clarifies that functional features are technical features that serve to define structures, compositions, steps, conditions or the relations thereof in terms of their functions or effects in the relevant invention, unless those of ordinary skill in the art could directly and clearly determine the specific exploitation methods for achieving such functions or effects by reading the claims alone (emphasis added).  Importantly, the time for determining functional limitations is the time when the infringing act took place, not the filing date.  This differs from US law.

Standard Essential Patents
Article 24 makes several clarifications, including the following:
  • if national, industrial or local standards clearly indicate the necessary patent-related information, the people’s court shall in general not uphold an infringement defense that the exploitation of such standards do not need the licensing from the patentee and thus does not infringe such patent right.
  • Where national, industrial or local standards clearly indicate the necessary patent related information and the patentee intentionally acts against the obligation for licensing on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms as committed in formulating the standards in consultation with the alleged infringer on the conditions for the exploitation and licensing of such patent, resulting in the failure to conclude the patent licensing contract, the people’s court shall, in general, not uphold the claim by the patentee for cessation of the exploitation of the standards, provided that the alleged infringer has no obvious fault in the consultation. (Emphasis added).

Basically, although it is not specifically required, the best course is for an owner of a SEP to approach a potential licensee before filing a lawsuit and seek a license under FRAND terms.  If this is done and the accused infringer refuses to negotiate or license, then all bets are off and the patentee can proceed.  


Conclusion
The New Interpretations are a mixed batch for patent owners, but are generally positive.  Plus, they provide greater structure and certainty to a Chinese patent litigation model that has rapidly evolved into one of the most effective and useful systems in the world.  

The most useful provision is the effective codification of a practice that several IP courts had been using lately:  shifting the burden of proving damages to the defendant once the patentee does a reasonable job with the available public resources of putting together a damages model.  That is, the patentee will put together a damages model as best they can, and the judge will turn to the defendant to produce documents or other evidence contradict the patentee's argument.  If the defendant does not provide rebuttal evidence, then the judge will accept the patentee's proof even if there are holes that cannot be filled with public evidence.  This is fair and makes sense because of the lack of discovery in China and puts the onus on the party with the relevant documents -- the accused infringer -- the provide them to the court or accept the patentee's reasonable damages model.

Another useful provision specifically acknowledges the existence of contributory infringement, and to some extent the requisite proof.  It appears that the accused contributory infringer must have knowledge of the patent and that the components it provides are needed for the exploitation of a patent.  The Interpretation does not mention whether the accused contributory infringer can raise as a defense its belief that the patent was not valid, so this is not likely a defense, although obviously actual invalidation is a defense as in any case.  





0 Comments
    Erick Robinson's Blogs:

    Litigation Funding Blog
    Patent Litigation Blog
    Trade Secret Blog
    PTAB Blog
    China Patent Blog
    AI Law Blog
    Picture
    Picture
    Follow @RobinsonErick

    Subscribe to the China Patent Blog by Email
    Welcome to the China Patent Blog by Erick Robinson.  Erick Robinson's China Patent Blog discusses China's patent system and China's surprisingly effective procedures for enforcing patents.  China is leading the world in growth in many areas.  Patents are among them.  So come along with Erick Robinson while he provides a map to the complicated and mysterious world of patents and patent litigation in China.  

    Author

    Erick Robinson is an experienced American trial lawyer and U.S. patent attorney formerly based in Beijing and now based in Texas. He is a Patent Litigation Partner and Co-Chair of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board Practice at Brown Rudnick LLP, where he manages patent litigation, licensing, and prosecution in China and the US.

    Picture
    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Categories

    All
    5-year Plan
    Amendments
    Articles
    China
    China Patent Law
    China Supreme People's Court
    Chinese Antitrust Law
    Chinese Patents
    CNIPA
    Damages
    Foreign Patentees
    Government
    Huawei
    Intel
    Interdigital
    Other Blogs
    Qualcomm
    Royalties
    Semiconductor
    SEPs
    SIPO

    Archives

    March 2025
    February 2025
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    September 2020
    May 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015



    ​Disclaimer:

    The ideas and opinions at ChinaPatentBlog.com are my own as of the time of posting, have not been vetted with my firm or its clients, and do not necessarily represent the positions of the firm, its lawyers, or any of its clients. None of these posts is intended as legal advice and if you need a lawyer, you should hire one. Nothing in this blog creates an attorney-client relationship. If you make a comment on the post, the comment will become public and beyond your control to change or remove it.

    RSS Feed